Posted
by
samzenpus
on Monday June 09, 2014 @02:10PM
from the here-you-go dept.

redletterdave (2493036) writes "Elon Musk has said repeatedly he wants to 'do something controversial' with Tesla's collection of electric car patents, but he finally offered specifics at the UK launch of his Tesla Model S on Sunday. The Tesla Motors CEO said he would like to open up the designs for his Supercharger systems — the free fast-charging stations designed to quickly refuel Tesla's electric cars — to create a standard for other car makers to use. Musk previously said he didn't want Superchargers to become a 'walled garden.'"

It doesn't take a smart man to realize preventing others from building the only devices capable of charging your car is dumb. Imagine if GM held the patent to the gasoline pump and tried to charge people for building alternative pumps.

You act as though that wasn't tried... or using 'special formulas' of fuel to tie them into your fuel supply... or even today, car makers still try to use 'special oil blends' that are required for their car... even though they aren't, by law.

Let's wait until he stops saying he'd "like" to open up his designs and "may" do something revolutionary with his patents and actually opens them up and/or does something revolutionary. Then we can judge how smart he is, because as it is all he's good at (on this topic, and so many others) is making provocative click-bait statements and watching the free publicity come rolling in.

Seriously, the Musk personality [slashdot.org] cult [slashdot.org] (three article devoid of substantive content in as many days) here on Slashdot is reaching

It may be smart in other ways. If it becomes the standard then it means that he doesn't eventually get stuck using someone else's standards (maybe one of the big automakers) and have to pay fee's to use their patented design. Once electric cars catch on these stations will be everywhere.

I would assume that someone has to pay for bringing in the half-megawatt of power required to charge 20-some cars at the same time. I don't know, but I assume this might be non-trivial in a lot of places or require the power company to upgrade service to make this happen.

Electricity is dead cheap.A full charge cost a lot less than the equivalent range in gaz.Tesla will probably center around a different model to attract customers.

One very possible model would be for Telsa to keep the charging either free or with only a small monthly/yearly fee, and earn most of the money through the services next to the station. (The charging is going to last up to 30 minutes any way. The driver and passenger are very likely going to take some time eating or drinking something).

One very possible model would be for Telsa to keep the charging either free or with only a small monthly/yearly fee, and earn most of the money through the services next to the station.

They could also offer the power at cost to Tesla owners, and at a reasonable but more profitable rate to other drivers. Either way, making the design open is just a good way to promote a sizable market.

Well after reading a bit on-line, it seems that they have a business model running a bit differently:- they "almost give-out" the charging station to terrain owner (owner of highway shop/gaz-station, etc.)- the owner only has to supply electricity (and as said electricity is cheap)- in exchange, the owner gets an increased traffic in the shop/restraurant(people, who have 10 to 30 minute to kill until full charge and buy food/drinks).

In that context, it's in the land owner's best interest to have a open technology in the charging stations:- the more open the standard, the more different drivers can stop to charge, and thus the more customers.

And Tesla in turn has a small advantage too:- the more shop/restaurant along the highway are likely to rent such stations, the more charging spots there are going to be overall, and the less potential customer will be afraid by range problems.- thus market for eletrical vehicle increase (of which Tesla has a substantial mind-share, and produce the longest-range vehicle)- thus market for car lithium batteries increase (a field where Tesla is leading, to the point that some people want to persuade them to drop the Model S and concentrate entirely on batteries for other companies).

Or to put it differently: all this charger will need batteries to charge, and Tesla is apparently the best game in town for batteries.(It would be as if Sanyo started to provide "free charging station" around in a country where Enloop have the strongest market penetrance)

Tesla has promised that the supercharger network is free for the life of the car. Considering that a full charge is probably under $5 it's not hard to build that into the price of the car. Access to the supercharger network cost $2000 for the 60KWh model and is included with the 85Kwh models. Typically owners don't use it all that frequently since it's just more convenient to plug in at home.

The growing electric vehicle market has plenty of room for multiple manufacturers. Tesla by itself cannot grow faster without introducing quality issues and cannot make vehicles fast enough to transition the entire vehicle market. Other automakers are unwilling to invest in their own supercharger network and without access to high power fast charging they will be forced to produce plug-in hybrids for the foreseeable future. Opening the standard would help br

not necessarily - its like Microsoft giving away IE... it makes sense because it encourages other manufacturers to use your charging kit, and so your cars have access to other's chargers - and so they become more convenient to own, and that lets you be more mainstream and that lets you sell more of them.

Are the superchargers a unique selling point of their products or are they an enabling infrastructure?Tesla is not just fighting other car makers, they are fighting public perception of electric cars.Growing the entire entire electric car market is more profitable than merely taking a larger chunk of a small electric car market.

Are the superchargers a unique selling point of their products or are they an enabling infrastructure?

At this point the former, but he's made statements in the past he'd like it to be the latter. Of course, of the common-build EVs*, his has the largest battery packs capable of taking the fastest charge. At 120 kW, a supercharger station blows most other EV stations out of the water.

For example, J1772 [wikipedia.org] maxes out at 19.2kW at AC level 2, and 90kW for DC level 2., with the DC lvl 2 standard not even being finalized yet, and DC level 3 still in the initial planning stages.CHAdeMO's wiki [wikipedia.org] is less useful, but it's connector is limited to 62kW. It's homepage lists chargers that max out at 60kW. [chademo.com]

I'll also say that compared to Tesla's chargers, the alternatives are indeed clunky. I think that Tesla compatibility might be a compelling choice if I'm making a moderate(150+ miles) or longer ranged EV if it enables me to sell access to the supercharger network as a feature point.

*Disclaimer because I'm sure there's one-offs that can do just the same.

The thing is though, that we're not generally charging the car to full. We don't need superchargers, except at the edges of town and between towns. In the city, we're just topping off a tiny bit as we go about our normal day, extending our range by 20-30 miles a day while we get groceries or watch a movie.

The existing 6v non-Tesla chargers take about 45 minutes to charge to full for us. The "common" chargers take 4-5 hours.

As the owner of a model S the other standards, including the J1772, are indeed clunky. Tesla has managed to create a connector that is smaller than J1772 yet handles more power than any other DC charging solution out there. The same connector is electrically compatible with both J1772 and the J1772 combo plug.. Tesla has a patent on the connector as well since its design also makes it really easy to insert the connector since it basically funnels it into place. Having RGB LEDs on the outside funnel part of

Pro society? Not really. This is a brilliant move in terms of getting his infrastructure built for him. The stations he's been putting up all over the country will drive him bankrupt pretty fast at the pace he's trying to keep. Spreading the load around to other potential electric vehicle manufacturers just means he's getting free gas stations.
It is brilliant, I won't deny that.

Supercharging sites they can afford to slowly build out. They do not lose money with these charging stations; the one I've seen was clearly a smart move. They bought the land around the charging station as well --- now something is being built upon it! The SMART move is to buy the space put in the chargers; make them free-- then RENT the commercial space around the charger! You make $$ either way.

Fast charging still can hold the customer long enough to buy some junk while waiting. Slower charging means

In most, not sure if all, cases Tesla didn't buy the land for the charging station. The land owner agrees to let Tesla locate the charger for free for 5 to 10 years. Tesla pays to install and maintain the charger and pay for electricity usage. The land owner theoretically gets extra business from Tesla owners.

I'd say it's pretty smart for shareholders if the tech takes off and he sees compatible fast charging stations nationwide. Imagine is one of the early car manufacturers had held on to the patent for the gasoline nozzle, we might all be riding trains for cross country trips.

Why? He will make licensing fees from each car sold. AND he can charge per KW for other cars to plug into their quick charging ports.Little known fact, for the baseline Tesla S (the one that cost 69k), it doesn't come with free supercharging capability, but its available as an option as purchase for $2000 (its also available as a after purchase option, but probably cost more). The higher models come with supercharging standard.

Weither they sell access to their stations are $2,000 up-front of if they meter i

It's $2000 and you can buy it at any point through their web site. Most people are buying the 85Kwh battery which includes access to the supercharger network. The $2000 is also there to help offset the cost of the extra hardware that is installed in the cars. Originally you would have to pay $2000 when you got the car to have the extra hardware installed. I think Tesla found that most people want this and that it's simpler to just always install the extra hardware.

"From a stock holder perspective. it's a very dumb move."Not necessarily. The biggest impediment to people buying electric cars is the lack of on road recharging. Otherwise people will need 2 cars, an electric one for the daily commute, and a gas/hybrid car for those long trips.

By Opening the charger, this does allow other electric cars to be made using the charger... However it will overall increase demand for electric cars.

Yes they will need to compete against other electric car makers, but being that

well, smart is relative. This shows him to be pro society.
From a stock holder perspective. it's a very dumb move.

Not sure you second statement is true. By opening the patents of his super charging systems, it encourages other parties to put up more stations. This would make Teslas more enticing to prospective buyers. Sometimes, pro-society and pro-profit are not mutally exclusive.

With a standard for quickly charging an electric car, the cars go from "rich man's novelty" to mainstream much sooner than if it was just Tesla pushing the technology.

I'd wager that if Ford, GM, Toyota, et al started making *competitive* plug-in hybrids that also used these supercharging stations, Tesla would also sell more cars as a result. (the marketing drones would call this synergy)

What if he considers others making charging stations, compatible with Tesla, not having to build all networks himself, paving way for Tesla cars on a broader scale?
That may very well turn out to be a very smart move, even for the shareholders...

well, smart is relative. This shows him to be pro society.
From a stock holder perspective. it's a very dumb move.

Hardly. Having a standard recharging platform would help spur adoption of electric vehicles since the buyer of a vehicle would no longer be tied to a specific manufacturer's design and recharging stations would become more viable since they can supply variety of manufacturers; much like gasoline stations today. In short, a standard would spur adoption of electric vehicles which would help Tesla.

It sounds like he's hoping to spread around the cost of charging [yahoo.com]:

If Musk does go through with this plan, he wants the competitors to go along with Tesla's "free power for life" clause. All the electricity used to charge up a Tesla at the Superchargers is included in the (hefty) purchase price of the car.

So if other companies are making a free charging station which is also compatible with the Tesla, then Tesla makes even mor

There is no cost to the taxpayers. The cost of charging is built into the price of the car. As it is, electricity is dirt cheap for supercharging. It probably cost them $5 for a full charge or less and most owners don't charge at the superchargers all that often since they are located such that it's more convenient to just charge at home.

In my case there's one a few miles from my house but I rarely use it. It's just more convenient to charge at home rather than wait to charge at the factory.

It's not a dumb move at all. Electric cars are still a very immature market, there are a lot more sales to be made from expanding the market than there are by stealing them from competitors. This is an "expand the market" type move.

And what stock holders like tends to screw over the company in 5-10 years...

That long?

Stock holders are very shortsighted, and typically have little or no interest in the medium/long term outcomes for the company -- they just want the stock to go up by 25% so they can sell it to some other sucker before the bottom falls out.

How is this a dumb move? By making charging stations ubiquitous, Elon is paving the way for even more sales of their already popular electric cars.

Sometimes, it's really important to know what your *core competence* is, and what is not. With this move, it would seem that Tesla motors sees that it is in the business of selling cars, not fueling stations.

Not necessarily. The biggest problem with the Tesla currently is lack of charging stations. So anything that can be done to improve that is good for Tesla in a "rising tide lifts all boats" kind of way.

well, smart is relative. This shows him to be pro society.
From a stock holder perspective. it's a very dumb move.

Not really. Every supercharger station anyone else builds to Tesla's specifications is in effect a "gas station" for Tesla cars. At the moment Tesla is spending tons of money building a supercharger network. Every station someone else decides to build, assuming they remain compatible, is a station Tesla gets for free. Technically speaking, Musk is making it easier for competitors to compete with him building electric cars because they will get an easier way to build out a charging network but just like

Sooner the better, last thing we need is every car manufacturer making their own version of a charger like has happened with phones and portable gadgets.

Perhaps legislation would be the best option - one type of charger technology that is unencumbered by patents or copyrights or anything, so everyone can use it and you can find a charging station that will work with your car, even if it was built by Apple.

This is one place where legislated standards would be a really bad idea. The charging process is one that benefits from every innovation that makes it a quicker or cheaper process. Companies should be allowed to change as they see fit.

Save legislated standards for situations where there is no innovation, only protectionism going on.

Your cell phone charger almost always has an option where you can plug it into the standard wall socket, most have an option to plug in a standard USB port. What you are bitching about is the other end of the plug that goes into the cell phone. Now the phone may have different features that will need a special plug, (Unless you really want a data plug(s) (Digital and Analog mix?) and a power plug)

That would most likely end up with an ugly solution being pushed on us. For example, mandating the USB standard does reduce the number of cables, up to the point Apple wants to release it's iPad sized iPhone.

Current open standards for EV charging stations max out at 60kW, half of what Tesla's superchargers put out. Less than half given that Tesla is actually looking to increase power even more. Even the 'next update' standards only up that to 90kW for J1772. [wikipedia.org]

Elon Musk wants more quick refuel infrastructure on the interstates and local roads/cities, which will advance Tesla's and others electric cars. This is not controversial but does provide probable wider support for Tesla's collection of electric car products, patents, and parts. Open up the designs for Tesla Supercharger systems — the free fast-charging stations designed to quickly refuel electric cars — creating an ISO/OASIS standard for other car makers to use makes prescient business sense.

He could most likely see the danger of Ford/Chevy/Nissan/Toyota and all the other big boys getting together to design their own and then charging fees to the small companies like Tesla to use it too. I'm surprised no one has jumped to lock out the small fry yet.

look at all the states where the dealer network is doing everything they can to kill tesla off by not allowing them to even sell their cars in those states. They did the same thing to Studebaker and a lesser extent delorean.

Chademo and J1772 are apparently in quite the fight right now, while Tesla forges ahead with it's superior propriatory solution.

The problem with 'locking out the small fry' is that:1. There's effectively no small fry around yet2. The base is too fragile as of yet to seriously try it. Right now it's more profitable to share stations.

1. Build an electric car that's heads and shoulders above the competition.
2. Build an innovative charging infrastructure to allow for long distance driving.
3. Open up the technology for that charging infrastructure so that gas stations and the like can start getting in on the action and making some profit.
4. With charging infrastructure becoming ubiquitous, that takes away many people's concerns about buying your car.
5. Also, with charging infrastructure becoming ubiquitous, that may encourage other auto manufacturers to move past compliance cars and actually start selling quality vehicles.
6. Tout competition's success as your own success, as it's built on your platform. Competition isn't only good PR in this context, but it carries with it the subtext that electric cars are a product category that is here to stay.

To some degree, I still like the idea of plug-in hybrids for the time being. But if this "open supercharger" thing is as successful as I think it's going to be, there could be a sea change in the consumer automotive market.

Plug-in diesel hybrids would probably be better, especially with an all-electric drive train.

An all-electric drive train allows a light diesel engine to run in its most efficient operating range continuously, under variable load. The engine could be a single-piston diesel pegged to 200RPM, getting more fuel when the battery charge is below 85% and when there is current draw by the motor.. The increased load (by charging or supplying power) would require more torque output for the engine to maintain 200

Take a Tesla S. Remove 2/3rds of the li-ion. Add one of these. Car loses 500 lbs. One-way range increases to ~1600 km. Refuelling for short trips is about 5 minutes. Longer ones takes a swap, just like now.

I doubt that you could use a Tesla-like Supercharger to charge a battery other than one made by Tesla. I'm not talking about DRM, I'm talking about the architecture of the battery pack itself - its charging characteristics, its safety features, its cooling system, and so on down to the level of the individual 18650 cells. Those aspects are still heavily protected - licensing and manufacturing the packs and powertrain is a side business for Tesla. So what looks like a move to open up the world could, like other standards, become a way to lock in a particular proprietary design.

I still think it's pretty cool, though. If it sheds more light on how Tesla has designed and constructed their pack, which is a fine technology, as well as directly showing ways to charge Li-Ion packs quickly, then I think this is a benefit to anyone interested in how electricity is used and stored (i.e., everyone). But I also like to keep in mind that Musk, for all his altruism, is still a capitalist and wants his vision of the future to be the one to succeed.

Electricity isn't a networking standard; it's part of the laws of physics.

Actually, battery chargers are kinda like networking standards. Yes, you have voltage and heavy gauge wire, but you also have two-way communication between the pack and the charger. Most of that is contained within the car itself, but it extends to external charge sources, too. Have a look at the SAE charging standard for EVs [wikipedia.org]. Tesla does not adhere to this standard, either for its connector or communications, which I will guess

I doubt that you could use a Tesla-like Supercharger to charge a battery other than one made by Tesla. I'm not talking about DRM, I'm talking about the architecture of the battery pack itself - its charging characteristics, its safety features, its cooling system, and so on down to the level of the individual 18650 cells.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about the Tesla Supercharger.

But I do know generally how chargers work - specifically multi-cell lithium chargers. Each cell requires a charge management circuit. I don't think the Supercharger actively manages the cell level charging. It is highly unlikely that given 10s or 100s of cells in a Tesla pack that there is going to be anything other than voltage, current and maybe a serial data line for that can be used for metering and financial charging.

All you have to do on the charging side is supply power in a certain standard way (AC vs. DC, high voltage vs. high current) and let the car decide how much current to pull. A standard interface between charger and battery controller is also important, otherwise there's a need to drop down to lowest common denominator charging (kinda like incompatible USB charging standards).

Tesla's superchargers use the same signalling standard as the J1772 combo plug. The car tells the charger what voltage and current to put into the battery so the charger is not tied to any one type of battery.

It's a nice gesture but AFAIK none of the other currently available designs can handle the amount of current that supercharger provides. Perhaps in 3-5 years when the other auto companies revamp their existing lineup with new designs they might decide to design around the supercharger 'standard' but I'm not holding my breath.

Actually there's Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard J1772. In Europe, the standard is IEC 61851. The big deal is that the Tesla supercharger is a Type 3 device under the SAE standard and that allows up to 600V DC at up to 400A with a serial connection to setup the options (IEC 61851-4 mode 4 will probably be similar but 1000V DC at 400A) and AFAIK there's no other type 3/mode 4 devices out there right now and none of the other EV's would be able to handle the massive currents needed to take that kind of ch

Electric cars are not ubiquitous because range and ability to charge is a concern. Charging stations are not ubiquitous because electric cars are not ubiquitous.

Gasoline automobiles were able to take off when they were invented because the liquid fuel infrastructure was in largely in place prior to their invention. Kerosene for lamps was distributed by metered pumps that were easily converted to dispense gasoline.

Establishing a standard charging station would allow companies to make the investment in charging infrastructure, confident that it would be widely applicable to different vehicles and would not disappear overnight. When you can pull into the CircleK and purchase a few kWh of juice while grabbing a burrito, that's when electric cars will really take off.

Well, range is still a concern. I drove to a convention where two Tesla-owning friends also went. I lisented to their discussion about how to manage the range issue of driving to a place that is just beyond a single charge, how they had to plan their recharging stop, how it limited their choices for a lunch break. None of us gasoliine vehicle drivers had that discussion. So it is still not only a concern, they find range interesting dinner conversation. Range is getting better, surely, but stll is abov

Lots of people with ICE cars talk about where to buy gas, and which place is least out of the way, and which place is close to somewhere good for lunch.

At conventions probably a lot of people are expensing their gas though, so they wouldn't talk about it even if they normally do, because they'd just stop at the place that is convenient to the freeway and 50 cents higher.

If you look at a map of charging stations, cities that have both charging stations and are big enough to have a convention center usually h

The issue was not charging stations at either end, it was the dearth in between. You can go ahead and pretend that charging stations are as ubiquitous as gas stations, but they are not. In some places, like my neighborhood, they are more than sufficient. Out of town, not so much. Anyway, go ahead and believe what you want -- I gave you two data points. You gave me zero, and some arm waving. I am *not* anti electric car, we're shopping for a Leaf, and two neighbors have Leafs. This is a great town in

When you can pull into the CircleK and purchase a few kWh of juice while grabbing a burrito, that's when electric cars will really take off.

Given the ability to charge at home, without even needing to visit the CircleK, as well as the large numbers of absolutely free charging stations, I'd say that EVs will take off when the average price drops enough to avoid sticker shock* while and battery capacity(buffered by high speed charging/battery swaps) climbs enough to overcome range anxiety. The Nissan Leaf isn't high enough ranged to avoid range anxiety, and the Model S still gives sticker shock.

Gasoline automobiles were able to take off when they were invented because the liquid fuel infrastructure was in largely in place prior to their invention. Kerosene for lamps was distributed by metered pumps that were easily converted to dispense gasoline.

Electricity for lamps is distributed by metered circuits that can easily be converted to dispense the correct voltage and amperage that a supercharger needs. The problem here is the inertia and lethargy from 100 years worth of gasoline powered cars. Both the chicken and the egg already exist.

Tesla isn't just a car company, they are a technology firm. The *real* value of Tesla (hence the stock price) is in the technology they own and control.

If Teslas chargers become "the standard", then the rest of the world will likely have to license Tesla's other technology to be compatible. This is akin to; anyone can build an ARM-based chip, but you have to license that right from the ARM group, which makes their stock (currently) more valuable then Intels.

Tesla running gear may also become the defacto standard for electric cars, and once the price drops, near unbiquitous -- which will make Musk extremely wealthy. Tesla won't have to make cars anymore, simply license the tech to everyone else to build.

They then can pour that money into more R&D and build even better and better running gear which in turn, all other manufacturers will need to license to keep up with the competition.... Which of course, will keep them very wealthy.

This general attitude is why Tesla is such a disruptive force, and why the rest of the automotive market and their ilk hate them. I for one am happy to see the status quo get genuinely threatened for a change.

While you're working on it, how about a new name? "Supercharger" is already a "thing" in automobile-lingo. And yes, I know most Slashdotters may not be gear-heads, using a name of a thing that already exists is glaring to those of us who are.

There is little to no interesting technology in the batteries themselves either; they have a specially-shaped cathode IIRC, but are otherwise manufactured from COTS cells which are already commonly produced.